Basant, J.

Is the pendency of security proceedings against a detenu under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure a relevant circumstance to which mind of the detaining authority must be applied before ordering preventive detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KAAPA’)?

Does the blissful ignorance of the pendency of such proceedings and the total omission/failure on the part of the detaining authority to apply his mind to that aspect vitiate the order of preventive detention?

Does the conduct of the sponsoring authority of totality withholding/suppressing such information from the detaining authority vitiate and justify the invalidation of the order of preventive detention?

These questions arise for consideration in this writ petition.

2. Fundamental facts are not disputed. The petitioner concededly falls within the definition of known rowdy in Section 2(p) of the KAAPA. The Circle Inspector of Police, Chavara submitted Ext.P4 report dated 19.5.2010 to the third respondent, the Superintendent of Police suggesting the invocation of the KAAPA against the alleged detenu, Jojo, S/o. John. The third